The Andrew Bostom video I posted (Thanks Jdamn) last week on youtube and embedded here has garnered a few views. The comments thread is rather interesting so I thought I would re post some of them over here. I’ll also post the video as well for anyone who has not seen it. It is a short lecture on the facts of ‘dhimmitude’ meaning life under Islamic rule or a Muslim dominated nation.
And now, a few of the comments:
First, the usual relativist nonsense attempting to mitigate the horrors of Islam with the claim that Christianity was as bad or worse some time ago, so Islam should not be considered to be a great threat. I sincerely do not understand how this line of reasoning works because in my universe, if it was bad then, it is bad now so even if these ‘temporal relativists’ are correct it does nothing to mitigate Islam. In any event, here is the comment that inspired a great response:
You need to do more research.
In Catholic controlled lands, people? were put to death for Pagan or Jewish rituals. Jews were considered to be bad luck and kept under close guard in parts of the city then killed whenever something went wrong to appease “God”.
Scholars were generally suppressed, most of pre-Christiandom learning was destroyed in Europe because it contradicted the bible.
All barbarism in the Koran has an equivalent in the Torah/Old Testament. It is not at all inconsistent.
Will Durant in his book “The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage”:
“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride? the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”
<AlexiusComnenos (13 hours ago) Show Hide
Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the Hindu population decreased by 80 million. Even those Hindus who converted to Islam were not immune from persecution, which was illustrated by the Muslim Caste System in India as established by Ziauddin al-Barani in? the Fatawa-i Jahandari.where they were regarded “Ajlaf” caste and subjected to severe discrimination by the “Ashraf” castes
AlexiusComnenos (13 hours ago) Show Hide
Aurangzeb, one of the last Muslim emperors had 10,000 Hindus massacred? everyday for a year. He alone was responsible for the massacre of at least 3,650,000 Hindus and destruction of more than 11,000 Hindu temples. William Durant, author of the voluminous “Story of Civilization” has described the Muslim conquests in India as constituting the saddest and goriest chapter in human history. Muslims have destroyed and looted the whole country and have killed countless innocent Hindus in the process.
AlexiusComnenos (13 hours ago) Show Hide
For greater detail, try reading Will Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Vol. I, Our Oriental Heritage, New York, 1972; K. S. Lal’s The Legacy of Muslim Rule In India.
And this is all so different than the Christian invasion of the Americas… HOW?…
If India’s population ever dropped by 80%, they would not be the second most populous country in the world.
On the other hand, we can say without any hesitation that Christians killed and? raped 90% of TWO ENTIRE CONTINENTS of people.
Compare what the Muslims did to the Indians compared to what Christians did to the “Indians” and it is clear the followers of Jesus are even more violent and bloodthirsty.
If you had hesitated to check your facts, you would know that the majority of North American Indians who died, did so because? of their lack of immunity to smallpox and other European diseases, few were forcibly converted to christianity or the victims of orders for the execution of 10,000 per day.
What is the relevance of your remark about India’s population dropping by 80%?
90% of “TWO ENTIRE CONTINENTS”?
Which two continents?
Please provide evidence for your figure of 90% of people from “TWO ENTIRE CONTINENTS”
I see, you think that the followers of Jesus were more? bloodthirsty than Aurangzeb and his blood lust for 10,000 deaths a day?
If it is so clear, you will be able to provide some evidence for that too.
AlexiusComnenos (1 hour ago) Show HideSome more perspective:
The first Crusade began in 1095 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital? of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies…… cont’d….
AlexiusComnenos (1 hour ago) Show Hidecont’d……..249 years after? Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammads death.AlexiusComnenos (1 hour ago) Show HideAs early as 652, Muhammads followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by? massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.AlexiusComnenos (1 hour ago) Show HideThe Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from? Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islams justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammads time).AlexiusComnenos (1 hour ago) Show HideThe Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was? not on the agenda.AlexiusComnenos (1 hour ago) Show HideThe period of Crusader occupation (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab/Muslim occupation is in its 1,376th year).
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad? against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.